Senator GARETH EVANS (Minister for Foreign Affairs) (10.03 p.m.)
—Can I just say the amendment is only striking out the capacity to apply that as one of the conditions in the arbitration; it is not striking out a negotiated royalty arrangement that is reached as a result of agreement between the parties. It is also, of course, not striking out a compensation payment which would continue to be applicable under clause 22. It is not a matter of denying an opportunity for financial recompense; it is just a matter of denying an obligation or a capacity on the part of the arbitral body to require a payment in the nature of a profit-related royalty. The reasons for that are those that I spelt out. It is again a matter of policy judgment.

What we are trying to do in this particular context is work out what is appropriate for rights that are already there. They are not newly created rights; they are rights that are already there. We think under those circumstances the kind of compensation regime that is here involved, together with the capacity to negotiate an agreement if circumstances make that possible, is sufficient and appropriate recompense in all the circumstances.